Peoriaman

nail meet head.

Of course they are average, they lost 96 games last year. Personally, I am thrilled they are "average" after last year.

Your welcome. Only Cub fans, who haven't won a World Series in 100 years, and whose managment has finally opened their wallet, could somewhat conjure up a rational that missing the playoffs is a good thing.

posters have way too much time on their hands.

I agree, but he's rating better defensively than Floyd is this year. No doubt. I am no Floyd fan. :)

Don't tell me what I like.

If you don't want this team to make the playoffs then you are not a fan. Why, exactly, is that? I happen to agree with Derwood's point of view, and I still consider myself a fan. Derwood's point is that he, like me, is sick and tired of this 1 decent year ever 4 or 5 with a load of utter crap marketed as a baseball team in the years between. Sure, 98 and 03 were boatloads of fun, but because of those years this franchise has never entered into rebuilding mode. Because the Cubs have never methodically rebuilt, the franchise hasn't fielded a great team in a long time. They have occasionally put decent teams on the field, but great teams win championships a lot more often than pretty decent ones do. In the last 20 years, the following NL teams have not managed a season of 95 wins: Rockies Marlins Brewers Cubs In fact, we've only won as many as 95 games once (1984) in the last 60 years. If you don't have a good foundation, the playoff years are going to be few and far between. Let me as you, are you a fan of the 2007 Cubs or the Cubs organization? If you don't want this team to make the playoffs then you are not a fan. This seems self-evident.

Regardless of how he hits, he needs to do a better job in the field. He missed the cutoff man several times yesterday.

wow is all I can say. This team lost 96 games last year and was the worst club in the NL. Methinks some people have unrealistic expectations for this team. I am thrilled they are in the playoff hunt and will be ecstatic if they make the playoffs. I cannot see how any Cub fan wouldn't be.

Why are you citing what is essentially a meaningless stat? It has no predictive value and only tells you how lucky the hitter has been in the past. Meaningless to you, not to me. I like guys who hit well with men on base. Murton's BA with RISP has been much worse than his BA for his entire MLB career. That siad, I support Matt to play in front of Floyd. I like his hot bat now. it's meaningless because, as a general rule, a player's BA w/risp naturally gravitates towards his total ba over the course of his career. i like guys who hit well with runners on base, too. but those same guys are those that hit well in any situation: close and late, blowouts early, full moon, saturnalia, fourth of july, etc. murton's career ops w/risp is below his career ops, but not ridiculously below. given enough pa's that number will come up and run consistent with his career averages. define "ridiculous". The numbers are very significant, both career and this year. no, they're not, considering the relatively short career that murton has had, 661 total pas. .277/.374/.384 to .303/.370/.462 not very significant at all. his numbers are down this season, but that usually means that they'll be up next season, or the season after that. Where are you getting those career numbers with RISP? Here is what I'm looking at: Murton's career Overall: .296/.364/.452 Nobody on: .330/.385/.526 Runners On: .246/.335/.346 RISP: .257/.354/.359 RISP/2outs: .247/.336/.320 So Murton's overall numbers and his numbers with RISP are about 100 points apart. The difference between nobody on and runners on is 230 points. i'm looking at his 3-year splits. Scoring Position 159 61 44 7 2 2 55 25 2 26 1 2 .277 .374 .384 .758 and i'm not looking at his numbers with nobody on, that can be just as meaningless as what he hits with runners on, and will follow the mean eventually as well. i'm looking across all situations. his career average w/risp will gravitate. I surely hope so. I especially sure hope so in the next 30 days. :)

Yes, that's what I meant. Murton is quite good at working counts and hitting deep in counts. The career stats show that very clearly, in fact typically the deeper into a count he gets the better of a hitter he is. I'm very much in favor of him working the count. When I said I thought he might be too patient with runners on, it's more of the fact that he would take strikes that he would normally drive for base hits with nobody on. That puts him behind in the count, and anybody gets worse when they are behind in the count. That would explain the higher walks and higher strikeouts (higher walks because the pitcher nibbles and Murton has a good eye), and lower BA and power (because with 2 strikes the pitcher isn't going to throw him a good pitch most of the time). agree. I knew what you meant.

in this instance, yes. floyd and murton have virtually the same isod. but when comparing players with much different isods, pa 's work better. i prefer to use them in every circumstance, ab's are often used to mean pa's, but that's not what they are. That I know, but when I saw walks were essentially the same, I didn't want to take the time to look them up. :)

When a guy has a .372 OBP.... well.... he ain't strugglin' much !! Yea Murtons obp over his entire Major and Minor league career, goes against him struggling deep in counts. I would agree, but I was responding to a poster earlier who thought MAYBE he doesn't HIT as well when being patient as opposed to swinging at the first pitch. He was giving a theory on why his BA with RISP was so low.

When a guy has a .372 OBP.... well.... he ain't strugglin' much !! Which is the reason I want him to play!

Why are you citing what is essentially a meaningless stat? It has no predictive value and only tells you how lucky the hitter has been in the past. Meaningless to you, not to me. I like guys who hit well with men on base. Murton's BA with RISP has been much worse than his BA for his entire MLB career. That siad, I support Matt to play in front of Floyd. I like his hot bat now. it's meaningless because, as a general rule, a player's BA w/risp naturally gravitates towards his total ba over the course of his career. i like guys who hit well with runners on base, too. but those same guys are those that hit well in any situation: close and late, blowouts early, full moon, saturnalia, fourth of july, etc. murton's career ops w/risp is below his career ops, but not ridiculously below. given enough pa's that number will come up and run consistent with his career averages. define "ridiculous". The numbers are very significant, both career and this year.

You can't put him in a spot in the order to hide him from hitting with runners on, it's not practical now. Soriano will likely always leadoff and Murton has been one the best hitters over the past two months, I'd trust Murton up with RISP right now over everyone except prob. Lee and Ramirez right now. Next year, I don't care about at this time. You're using career stats to try and justify moves over the next 30 days, if he only stays hot for the next 10 days and he's in a position to produce, his impact for those 10 days will matter more than any other possible managerial move. agree.

If (and that is a big if) Murton struggles deep in counts, than #2 may not be his best spot. Most managers want #2 to take a lot of pitches.

Hey you have to be careful going deep into the county, it could be dangerous depending on where you are lol. Lock your doors! :)

Why are you citing what is essentially a meaningless stat? It has no predictive value and only tells you how lucky the hitter has been in the past. Meaningless to you, not to me. I like guys who hit well with men on base. Murton's BA with RISP has been much worse than his BA for his entire MLB career. That siad, I support Matt to play in front of Floyd. I like his hot bat now. It's meaningless because all it tells you is that that player has happened to have runners on base when he's gotten his hits. On top of that, rarely do you ever have enough of a sample size with RISP stats to conclude anything meaningful. well, we disagree. And 3 years of Murton's stats tell me something. Hopefully, he turns it around.

I am all for patience, but many times the best pitch you get is the first one--the get me over fastball. Matt seems to tatoo this ball, but struggle when he goes deep in the count.y

Agreed. Murton should be getting the PT because he is doing well, just like Floyd got the PT deservedly when he was doing better than Murton in the first half of the season. Murton's nobody on and runners on situation just keeps getting stranger and stranger. Here are his career numbers: Nobody on (464 AB's): .330/.385/.526 Runners on (321 AB's): .246/.335/.346 Now, it's still only 785 at-bats, and it still has plenty of time to turn around. 230 points is still an absolutely massive difference for that number of at-bats. Maybe he is too patient with runners on? (his walk rate and strikeout rate on his career are both up with runners on, while his BA and power are way down. That suggests too much patience in those situations). Like I've said before, that still doesn't mean that you don't start Murton. Even if you believe these numbers won't turn around, that just means you have to put him in a spot in the batting order that will come up the most times without runners on. well said Colt.

Did I say the bolded part? No. you didn't Ping. I agree with you. That "bolded part" was aimed at those who twist stats for their own argument. As I said, I'd go with Matt now. I don't particularly like Floyd or his game.

sorry, typo, I meant Murton. :)

Why are you citing what is essentially a meaningless stat? It has no predictive value and only tells you how lucky the hitter has been in the past. Meaningless to you, not to me. I like guys who hit well with men on base. Murton's BA with RISP has been much worse than his BA for his entire MLB career. That siad, I support Matt to play in front of Floyd. I like his hot bat now.

what are the sample sizes here? comparing murton's handful of plate appearances to floyd's wealth of them doesn't exactly paint an accurate picture. 190 ab's for Murton and 243 for Floyd. that's what i get for speaking without looking. Floyd has 100 more ab's against righties than Murton i know, i wish i wasn't so lazy. but i posted as much above. thanks, though. one thing, not trying to be smarmy or anything, but i hate the term "AB". "PA" is much better. AB doesn't catch walks, hbp, or sacs, which can add up throughout the course of season. PA's were essentially the same difference.